Madras High Court Slams TN Police for Meddling in Civil Disputes

The Madras High Court at Madurai Bench has held that police officers have no authority to entertain or conduct enquiries into disputes that are civil in nature and directed that the practice of “current paper enquiry” be discontinued across Tamil Nadu.

The bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi, passing a common order on six petitions filed from Tirunelveli, Ramanathapuram, Sivagangai, Kanyakumari and Madurai districts, said the police have no jurisdiction to summon individuals or intervene in matters such as property transactions, private loans or contractual disagreements. 

The petitions were filed by several individuals who alleged that they were being repeatedly called to police stations and harassed under the guise of enquiry in matters that were admittedly civil in nature. In some cases, the police had issued summons under Sections 94 and 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) without registering any First Information Report.

Justice Pugalendhi noted that all the complaints underlying the petitions related to private money dealings, sale agreements or family property disputes, none of which disclosed the ingredients of a cognizable offence such as cheating, criminal breach of trust or intimidation.

“Civil courts are established to address such disputes. However, private individuals appear to have found an easy method to collect money by lodging complaints before the police,” court observed.

Court found that the police were resorting to an informal mechanism called “current paper enquiry,” which, it said, has no statutory basis under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the BNSS.

“Such unrecorded steps create a shadow administrative system, where matters may be selectively acted upon or indefinitely kept pending without any audit trail,” the court said, adding that the practice enables arbitrary action and coercion.

Observing that the police were functioning like “asset recovery agents” in civil transactions, the judge said such conduct “strikes at the core of the rule of law.” Court also remarked that summoning parties without any registered case amounted to harassment and a violation of their right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgments in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006), Lalita Kumari v. State of UP (2013), and Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2025), court reiterated that criminal law cannot be used to settle civil or commercial disputes and that using police pressure to recover money amounts to abuse of process.

Following earlier directions from the court, the Director General of Police (DGP) informed that a new circular was issued on June 14, 2025, formally ending the “current paper enquiry” system. The circular directs that all complaints must now be recorded either as a Community Service Register (CSR) entry, a preliminary enquiry, or an FIR, and that no summons can be issued without one.

To prevent further misuse, the High Court laid down further clear directions, which include that police officers shall not entertain or investigate civil disputes and that summons or notices under Sections 94 or 179 BNSS shall be issued only after the registration of an FIR.

It also directed that complainants in money or property disputes be advised to approach civil courts and that any violation of these directions would invite disciplinary proceedings.

“The police are entrusted with the solemn duty of enforcing criminal law, not mediating private quarrels or acting as recovery agents,” Justice Pugalendhi said, cautioning that recurrence of such practices would attract strict judicial scrutiny.

Court directed the Director General of Police to circulate the order and relevant circulars to all district and city police units for compliance.

Case Title: Abdul Kadar and Others vs. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City and Others with connected matters

Order Date: November 5, 2025

Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi